THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL

The Influence of a University's Learning and Teaching Strategy

On the Use of Blended learning within a Faculty: A Staff Perspective

Being a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Education in E-Learning

in the University of Hull

by

Victoria Louise McGarvey, BA Staffordshire University,

PgDipILS Manchester Metropolitan University, PgCert History of

European Design and Visual Culture Staffordshire University

April 2010

Contents

Introduction 3

Chapter 1. Influences on the Use of blended learning

Within Teaching in Higher Education 7

Chapter 2. Research Design and Methodology 25

Chapter 3. Results and Findings 46

Chapter 4. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations 67

References 79

2

Introduction

The following study will investigate the influence of a University’s learning and

teaching strategy on the use of blended learning within a Faculty. The study focuses on

the Faculty of Social Sciences at Sterndale University an English university, which had

previously been a polytechnic but became a university in 1992 after the passing of the

Further and Higher Education Act. This Faculty was chosen because it has evidenced an

integrated approach to supporting the use of blended learning by the creation of a

“Blended Learning Group” for teaching staff, the dissemination of good practice,

illustrated within existing courses and the development of a policy for learning and

teaching and assessing online (FLTAO), which provides a definition of blended

learning. The research will attempt to answer the questions how and why Sterndale’s

learning and teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning within teaching in

the Faculty of Social Sciences.

This is a qualitative investigation, using the Faculty of Social Sciences as a case study.

A multimodal approach was implemented, which analysed the University’s strategic

documents and the interview transcripts of six members of staff within the Faculty, four

of which are involved in teaching and two have a strategic responsibility. The analysis

and the findings attempts to identify the influences and the barriers on the use of

blended learning and to correlate these with the University’s learning and teaching

strategy.

This research is within the context of the demographic and organisational changes,

which have taken place within higher education since the Dearing Report (NICHE,

1997) which includes the impact of the use of technology within teaching. The change

3

in approach with respect to the integration of technology within teaching in higher

education is exemplified in the Higher Education Funding Council of England’s

(HEFCE) decision to revise its 2005 Strategy for E-learning because of a review carried

out by Glennaffric Ltd. (2008). HEFCE decided to change the title of its strategy to

Enhancing Learning and Teaching Through the Use of Technology because it thought e-

learning to be too narrow a term to describe the use of learning technology within

teaching in higher education (HEFCE, 2008). The Glennaffric review suggested a move

from the “technological determined” approach reflected in the original strategy to an

approach that reflected the “transformative potential of technology” (HEFCE, 2008:5).

The executive summary provides three levels of benefits for using technology within

teaching, efficiency, enhancement and transformation, all relating to existing processes

within higher education. The strategy provides a framework for enhancing learning with

technology, for institutions, which includes considerations with respect to pedagogy,

learning resources, lifelong learning, infrastructure, research and quality. However,

after the Dearing Report (NICIHE, 1997) universities had already been encouraged to

implement learning and teaching strategies (Gibbs et al. et al., 2000), which included

interventions with respect to the use of technology (Sterndale, 1994, Conole et al.,

2007). Some universities for example, Oxford Brookes (Sharp et al. 2006) and

Staffordshire University (2003) also developed specific e-learning strategies. HEFCE’s

recent change in direction but clearer articulation in relation to learning and teaching

and the normalising of e-learning will put new demands on institutions to revisit their

existing strategic approaches, to ensure that they are responsive to the changing digital

educational landscape.

The new HEFCE strategy acknowledges the influence of recent studies, which have

tried to articulate the drivers and rationales for influencing the use of technology to

4

enhance learning. In addition, commentators and some institutions have begun to use

the term blended learning (Sharpe et al., 2006, Sterndale, 2009, Jara and Mohamad,

2007) to define the approach where technology is implemented within face-to-face

teaching. Organisations such as JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), UCISA

(University and Colleges Information Systems Association) and the HEA (Higher

Education Academy) have all been contributory in articulating learning and teaching

rationales for the integration of technology within learning and teaching and influencing

strategic directions. The HEA’s 2006 study (Sharpe, et al.) into the undergraduate

experience of blended e-learning identified, institutional, course and educational

rationales for using blended learning, which included supporting a diverse and increased

student population; enabling flexible learning and operating in a global context. More

recently, the CAMEL (Collaborative Approaches to the Management of e-Learning)

2008 report on tangible benefits of e-learning, identified a number of drivers influencing

the development of e-learning by teaching staff within Higher Education. These drivers

included, retention and recruitment; improving efficiency; recording achievement and

reflection; skills development; institutional strategic policy; innovative reputation; asset

preservation and quality. UCISA’s 2008 (Browne et al.) survey added some additional

factors, namely meeting student expectations; widening participation; internal and

external funding and responding to technological changes. The UCISA survey also

discovered that strategic documents, produced by HEFCE, JISC, the DFES and

professional bodies as well as institutional e-learning strategies and policies were all to

some extent contributory.

The first chapter of this case study provides the theoretical context for this research. It

examines in more detail some of the studies cited above and will considered the impact

of Dearing (NICHE, 2007) on the strategic priorities within higher education together

5

and the influence of technology on the learner experience. The chapter considers the

various approaches and definitions of blended learning, in particular influences on using

blended learning and technology within teaching, referring to the research carried out by

HEFCE (Sharpe et al 2006), JISC (2007) and UCISA (Brown et al. 2008). In addition,

it takes into account the barriers to using technology for teachers. The second chapter

describes the organisational context for this case study, it provides an overview of the

case study methodological approach influenced by Yin (2003) and the strategic

decisions made with respect to the case study approach. The third chapter presents the

findings from the analysis of the strategic documents and the interviews. These findings

attempt to identify the influences on and the barriers to using blended learning within

teaching in Sterndale’s Faculty of Social Sciences. Initially, a number of barrier and

influence propositions, informed by the literature, were developed these formed the

basis for the coding of the strategic documents and interviews, which were analysed

using a grounded theory approach together with axial coding. The interview analysis not

only identified the influences on and barriers to the use of blended learning within

teaching there was an attempt to establish a relationship between the interviewee

responses and the University’s learning and teaching strategy. The fourth chapter

reflects further on the findings of the research and discusses if the how and why

questions, with respect to the University’s learning and teaching strategy influence on

the use of blended learning, were answered within the case study. The chapter considers

what improvements the university can make with respect to the development of its

learning and teaching strategy together with its implementation and provides a series of

recommendations for engaging staff with University learning and teaching strategy and

blended learning approaches.

6

Chapter 1

Influences on the Use of blended learning

Within Teaching in Higher Education

Our goal is to help universities and colleges use new technology to enhance learning and teaching as effectively as they can, so that it becomes part of their activities. (HEFCE, 2009:17)

Since the Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997), Higher Education within the United

Kingdom has experienced dramatic demographic and cultural changes. National drivers

such as, widening participation, the introduction of top up fees (DFES 2003), quality

assurance and modularisation (NCIHE 1997) together with the internationalisation of

education, have had a considerable influence on the strategic priorities of universities.

These organisational changes have been paralleled by great advances in technology,

which have had a major impact on individuals and institutions. The following will

provide an overview of these changes together with their impact on teaching,

particularly concentrating on the impact of technology. It will critically analyse the use

of the term blended learning, which has become a phrase used by some to define a

combination of face-to-face and online teaching (Sterndale, 2009, Sharpe et al., 2006)

and will reflect on the rationales relating to the pedagogic approaches associated with

this. It will finally go on to consider the impact of strategic approaches to the use of

technology to support teaching within universities, taking into account institutional

learning and teaching strategies.

7

Higher Education Context

The eighth report from the Universities UK, covering the period 1997/98 – 2006/07,

noted a dramatic change in the student population over that 10 year period. For

example, enrolments had increased by 31%; the number of undergraduates was up by

28% and postgraduates dramatically by 45%, although it observed that there was

uncertainty about whether the loan debt associated with variable rate fees, would have

an impact on enrolments in the future. The report stated that part time study was

beginning to play a more important role in addressing the development of skills and the

lifelong learning agenda, but addressed in little detail the disadvantaged position of part

time students with regards fees and funding. Most part time students were in the 30 – 50

year age group and it was predicted that this group would grow. Another observation

presented was the increase in international students over this 10-year period. Non-EU

international students have more than doubled; in fact, there has been a greater growth

than that of UK based students, with China forming the largest proportion and India

being a significant provider of postgraduate students. The report observed an increase

in mature students but there was only a slight increase in minority ethnic groups and

lower social economic groups, and although female enrolments have increased, male

enrolments have slightly declined by 3%. Taking into account this, despite widening

participation being a major strategic priority for the government it appears that

institutions still have to undertake considerable work in this area.

With respect to the UUK report it is useful to see if these observations are accurately

reflected at Sterndale University, the institution within this study because it may

illustrate that there is parity between national demographic trends and institutional

demographic trends. Sterndale University currently has just over 23,000 students; just

8

fewer than 80% are undergraduate students, over 20% of the students are undertaking

postgraduate studies and over 2% are on foundation degrees. Over 30% of students are

from the local area and nearly 10% of the student population are international students,

coming from the EU and beyond. Nearly 60% of students are full-time, over 20% are

part time and over 20% are on sandwich degrees. The largest College is Business Law

and Social Sciences, which hosts nearly 45% of the student population. Some of these

statistics compare favourably with the UK statistics published by UUK, despite some

discrepancies; the demographic picture at Sterndale is not too different to the national

demographic picture.

Comparison of Student Numbers: Sterndale and UK

Student type Sterndale UK

Undergraduate 80% 76%

Full time 60% 50%

Part time 20% 24%

International students 10% 15%

Largest Course

Business and administrative

studies

20% 13%

Consequential to these changes in the student population and a preoccupation with new

managerial approaches (Connole et al., 2007, Deem, 1998) institutions have become

more concerned with quality assurance and enhancement (Smith, 2007). According to

Gibbs et al.(2000), the introduction of modularisation led to the redesign of course

specifications and the development of learning outcomes. The Dearing Report (NICHE,

9

1997) increased the priority of teaching within institutions, institutions, as a result, were

encouraged to develop learning and teaching strategies, similarly to the U.S and

Australia, and some funding was made available to encourage this activity. According

to Gibbs et al. (2000), the purpose of the strategies was to,

improve quality, address specific challenges, coordinate activities, encourage cultural change and exploit communication and information technologies (Gibbs et al., 2000:358).

Gibbs et al. states that the success of these strategies was dependent on strong

leadership and management. Staff needed to understand the rationale for the

implementation of the strategy, therefore the strategy needed to be in a language that

staff understood. However, there has been some criticism that this is not been the case,

that learning and teaching strategies are still not engaging staff and that institutions need

to undertake considerable work to “empower and motivate staff by their discourse”

(Smith, 2008: 405). The purpose of this research will be to examine whether staff

within the Faculty of Social Sciences at Sterndale do engage with strategy and whether

the amount of engagement is influenced by strong leadership within the faculty.

An attempt had previously been made by Sterndale University to examine staff

involvement with learning and teaching strategy, within the context of integrating

technology within teaching. In 2007, the University ran an e-learning benchmarking

exercise, which was part of the national e-learning benchmarking exercise, led by the

Higher Education Academy (HEA) and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee).

The e-learning benchmarking exercise held focus groups within each Faculty, which

were comprised of teaching staff, and one of the questions asked was about their

awareness of learning and teaching strategy. The analysis of the focus groups found that

most staff were aware of the University’s learning and teaching strategy (SLTS) but

10

were not aware of the Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS), which was a

University requirement in order to address the priorities in the SLTS. It could therefore

be argued that this response showed that some staff were not fully aware of or engaged

with their faculty’s strategic approach.

Connole et al. (2007) highlight the importance of the Dearing Report with respect to the

implementation of technology within teaching as it has fifteen recommendations that

reference this. According to Connole et al., a result of the Dearing Report was that

institutions began to “interlink strategies” (Connole et al., 2007:47) to ensure that the

integration of technology was considered within learning and teaching. Another

consequence of the Dearing Report was that Higher Education began to debate the

impact of “ICT-scale-up, infrastructure and associated staff and student training needs”

(Connole et al., 2007:47). Higher Education also began to identify a range of

technological initiatives and products, which would become part of mainstream

education, which facilitated the development of ICT skills, such as the implementation

of virtual learning environments and digital libraries. Connole et al. argue that the

influence of technology in the 90s within Higher Education, was mainly at a strategic

rather than an operational level. However, they state that since the end of the last

century the importance of learning and teaching has been evidential in available

funding, listing initiatives such as, “managed learning environments, sharable resources

and digital repositories” (Connole et al., 2007:47). This reflects the findings in

Sterndale’s (2007) e-learning benchmarking report, which stated that half of the staff

surveyed thought that there was an attempt to integrate e-learning within programmes

whilst the other half did not. However, most staff surveyed thought that faculties did not

present clear aims, targets and resource plans for integrating e-learning, although the

report observed that the Faculty of Social Sciences, which is being examined in this

11

case study, did unusually provide some support via its learning and teaching committee

and distance learning special interest group. Conole et al. (2007) claim in order to

address the operational aspects of e-learning within universities, JISC implemented an

e-pedagogy programme, which supported research into teacher and learner experiences

and the development of national e-learning strategies by HEFCE and DFES, which

illustrates that there “is a dialogue between policy-makers, funders and practitioners”

(Connole et al., 2007:48).

Student Expectations

Over the last 8 years the development of Web 2.0 technologies, “social web,

technologies that enable, communication, collaboration, participation and sharing”

(JISC, 2009:5), have changed the way that students interact and share resources. The

recent JISC report “Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World” comments that,

the timeline is striking for example: WIKIPedia (online encyclopaedia) 2001; del.icio.us (social bookmarking) 2003; MySpace (social networking); Facebook (social networking) 2004; Flickr (social media) 2004; Bebo (social networking) and YouTube (social media) 2005. (JISC, 2009:13)

JISC, via its learner expectation reports, has provided some valuable observations in

relation to learners’ relationship with technology. The JISC 2007 report “In their own

Words” identified a group of adept of technology users who wanted to use their own

technologies but were willing to experiment and use a blend of the institutional

provided technology with their own. However, the report did observe that there was a

digital divide within the student population and that those with poor technology skills

were at a disadvantage. It also introduced the issue of information literacy skills and the

need for all students to develop these, particularly in the area of evaluating information

sources and their appropriateness.

12

JISC’s Student Expectations Study (2007) surveyed students about to go to University.

It introduced students’ concerns relating to the integration of technology within

learning, in particular the use of technology without providing a clear rationale. It

showed that students were pragmatic regarding the advances in technology, mainly

using it to find information, communicate with friends and family, and organising

events. Their experience of ICT within the learning environment had mainly been in

relation to accessing resources rather than accessing learning activities. Overall

participants still preferred traditional teaching methods: “ICT was seen to be a

supplement to teaching not as a substitute” (JISC, 2007:22). However, some

participants thought that technology would play a greater role at university, mainly with

respect to accessing resources rather than the delivery of new teaching methods.

The 2008 Ipsos Mori study for JISC built on this research by talking to students in their

first year of study within Higher Education. Face-to-face teaching was still regarded as

the best form of teaching, and face-to-face teaching support with poor use of technology

was considered worse than using no technology at all. The participants’ perceptions of

the teacher’s role was an authoritative role a conveyor of knowledge, they were more

comfortable with online social networking that was initiated by themselves or their

fellow students, than that initiated by their tutors. The report commented that there was

a challenge for universities with respect to introducing new technologies because of

student reluctance. To overcome this, the study stated that universities have to

encourage students to consider how technology can enhance their learning and take into

account the less technically able.

13

Some of the findings in these student expectations studies are similar to the findings in

Sterndale’s (2007) e-learning benchmarking report. In the staff survey in relation

student expectations of the use of e-learning on courses, most staff said that there was

not a high demand by students to integrate e-learning. However, there was criticism of

teaching staff by the student focus groups with respect to the absence of online

resources to support courses, in particular assessment criteria, reading lists and contact

details. Students thought that there should be more consistency across courses with

regards online resources. Some students, conversely, did mention that the dependency

on the use of the virtual learning environment had had an impact on the student

community with some students feeling socially isolated.

Blended Learning

In order to address the learning and teaching challenges outlined above, teaching staff

and institutions as a whole have begun to explore how learning technologies can be

integrated within face-to-face teaching to enhance the learning experience. A term that

is popularly used to describe this approach is blended learning (Sterndale, 2009, Sharpe

et al., 2006, Jara and Mohamad, 2007), although, there has been some debate over the

definition of the term, many of the definitions refer to a combination of face-to-face and

online learning. Rovai and Jordan (2004) define blended learning as learning which

takes place in different times and places. Another definition is the fusion of face-to-face

and online learning and teaching, within a context of a community of enquiry (Garrison

and Kanuka, 2004, Garrison and Vaughan, 2007). This definition reflects a

transformative approach to course design, highlighting the importance of interactivity

within the learner community, both online and in face-to-face settings, to facilitate the

development of knowledge, giving learners the opportunity to spontaneously react and

14

reflect, on and off line. Garrison and Kanuka (2004) state that there are three elements

within this approach; social, providing opportunities to challenge established beliefs,

cognitive, via goal setting and teaching and the final element, teacher facilitated

learning. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) claim that blended learning is a new learning

and teaching paradigm, the combination of face-to-face and online learning, where the

presence of both modes of delivery enhances learning. Jara and Mohamad (2007) use

blended learning to refer to “a course or module which includes face-to-face and

distance/online elements” (Jara and Mohamad, 2007:7), and to articulate this they have

developed a blended learning continuum, a series of models moving from a resource

based approach through to transformative design, where teaching takes place mainly

online:

Jara and Mohamad’s Blended Learning Continuum (2007:7)

B1: Online admin support Core learning activities and support are face-to-

face. Administrative information, resources,

assignment submission and some support is online

B2: Follow-up Core learning activities and support are face-to-

face. Additional online task and support are

organised in between sessions as follow up or

preparation for other sessions

B3: Parallel Learning activities run in parallel some in the

face-to-face sessions others online

B4: Face-to-face events Core learning activities and support are online.

Face-to-face events/workshops are held to initiate

or wrap up online activities

15

Oliver and Trigwell (2005) criticise the use of the term blended learning, because they

say it is ill defined. However, they seem less critical of the definition of a combination

of face-to-face and online activities although they do question whether there is anything

special about using the internet to support teaching. Oliver and Trigwell claim that the

origin of the term can be found within training not education and the approach of

combining face-to-face teaching with online was introduced because of the failure of

online training. They contend that the term is now used within higher education to

“bolster the subservient relationship of HE to industry” but fails to recognise the

“success, experience and expertise of Higher Education” (Oliver and Trigwell,

2005:21). Oliver and Trigwell claim that the term could be redeemed if understood

within the context of learning theory, in particular, variation theory which pertains that,

learning occurs if variation in the object of learning is discerned, in other words the

learner experiences something different and this will vary from learner to learner. They

suggest the need to look at variations in learner experience within a blended learning

context that involves,

a critical analysis of aspects of the subject matter that are in variation in the act of using blended learning (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005:24).

The rationale for taking this approach is because often what students learn from blended

learning is different from what the teacher originally intended, and if there is a blend of

learning experiences this could be defined as blended learning. However, it could be

argued that this is not specifically related to blended learning but learning in general.

Sharpe et al. (2006) claim that the strength of the term blended learning lies in the fact

there is not one definition, as it allows,

staff to negotiate their own meaning – the implication of the protection of face-to-face teaching and the implication of designing active learning (Sharpe et al., 2006:4).

16

Their report found that “delivery mode, technologies and chronology, are consistent

with the use of the term” (Sharpe et al., 2006:22) ranging from the delivery of resources

to support face-to-face teaching to transformative course redesign, where online

teaching had replaced face-to-face and where learners were even using their own

technologies. This continuum is similar to that reflected by Jara and Mohamad’s

(2007) models of blended learning, which are a useful reference point. For, example,

Sterndale’s, definition of blended learning, within its minimum standards of online

learning, which will be the adopted definition for this research, is more closely aligned

to Jara and Mohamad’s (2007) B3 parallel model.

This programme will combine traditional and online learning approaches. This will include essential information…. [and] a range of online learning activities…Participation in online activities is therefore as important as participation in the classroom. (Sterndale, 2009:3)

Rationales for Using Blended Learning

The rationales for using blended learning are as varied as the definitions. However,

despite one of the main reasons behind adopting a blended learning approach being to

address the organisational changes facing teaching staff within higher education, such as

the impact of an increasing diverse student population, the most prominent driver

appears to be learner enhancement (Garrison and Vaughan. 2007). For example, Jara

and Mohamad (2007) provide a number of reasons with respect to why teaching staff

should use their blended learning models. Their reasons include, easy 24/7 access to a

wide range of resources; extending activities and communication beyond the classroom;

improving the quality of face-to-face sessions; the opportunity for students to share

experiences and improved support for off-campus students. It could be argued that these

reasons not only address organisational issues but also tackle the issue of learner

engagement, which as a result will enhance the learner experience. Also in UCISA’s

2008 (Browne et al.) survey of technology enhanced learning, respondents rated the

17

quality of learning and teaching in general as the most important driver for using

technology followed by:

Meeting student expectations Improving access to learning for students off campus Widening/participation/inclusiveness Improving access to learning for part time students (Browne et al.,

2008:10)

Sharpe et al. (2006) in their HEA commissioned report into student experiences of

blended learning, organised rationales into categories, institutional, course and

educational. The institutional rationales related to the organisational changes that

universities are dealing with, such as, supporting a diverse student population, in

particular mature students; enabling flexible learning in order to improve recruitment

and retention; operating in a global context; efficient delivery of learning and enhancing

the on-campus experience. With respect to course rationales, some of those identified by

Sharp et al. are similar to Mohamad and Jara’s (2007). These included, coping with

large numbers of students; engaging students out of class; providing easier access to

staff for students and developing students’ professional skills, mostly relating to I.T.

With respect to educational rationales, Sharpe et al. organised these into associative,

constructivist and situative. Mayes and De Freitas had used these learning groupings in

their JISC review of e-learning theories in 2004. With regards associative learning,

Sharp et al. presented illustrations of blended learning which used e-resources and

assessments that affected student performance. Constructivist learning was exemplified

by online student collaborations. With respect to situative learning this was

demonstrated in professional courses where there was a “rationale to develop the skills,

attitudes and behaviours of practitioners” (Sharpe et al., 2006:35).

Sterndale does not use the term blended learning in its 2004-2010 University Strategic

Plan, however, the institutional rationales cited by Sharp et al. (2006) relate to the

18

benefits, within its “E-Learning Strategy” section within the plan, particularly in

relation to flexibility and efficiency.

…flexibility to students of time pace and place of their learning opportunity to offer a diverse product portfolio that reaches new markets opportunity to enhance student skills a consistent VLE for staff and students reducing costs of maintenance and

support A managed learning environment…thus maximising efficiencies A skilled academic workforce that is at the leading edge of using

technologies to enhance learning and teaching An enhanced reputation aiding the university to the preferred choice

(Sterndale, 2004:32)

One area that is not fully addressed by Sharpe et al. is the development of academic

skills, which it will be seen in this research, is an important factor in encouraging staff

to use blended learning approaches. Sterndale is due to release a new strategic plan and

it will be interesting to see if it takes a lead from HEFCE (2009) and replaces the term

e-learning with blended learning or technology enhanced learning. Sterndale’s learning

and teaching enhancement strategy (SLTS), produced two years after the University

strategy, which underpins,

the policies practices and support needed to promote good practice and foster excellence in learning and teaching (Sterndale, 2006:1)

does use the term blended learning.

[SLTS] embraces the essence of the Elearning Strategy [university strategic plan] to move towards blended learning in the delivery of University programmes. (Sterndale, 2006:2)

It states that blended learning will “engage and excite students” (Sterndale, 2006:5) it

does not provide any detailed rationales but goes on to give a set of priorities for

implementing blended learning. More recently, Sterndale’s (2009) Minimum Standards

of Online Learning policy does provide a definition and an approach to blended learning

(see above). However, the policy does not give any rationales for using blended learning

19

but provides rationales for online learning relating to student expectation, which was

second on UCISA’s (Browne et al., 2008) list of drivers.

In setting a minimum standard of online provision the University seeks to give students a common expectation of access to information and resources across their programmes of study (Sterndale, 2009:2)

This is within the context of student expectations in relation to access to technology and

development of their digital literacy skills in preparation for work, as well as dealing

with “current pedagogic and demographic trends” (Sterndale, 2009:1) with limited

resources in a competitive HE environment (Sterndale, 2009, Sharpe et al., 2006).

Barriers to Using Blended Learning

It was difficult to find research that specifically focused on the barriers relating to the

use of blended learning, much of the literature relates to barriers with respect to the use

of technology and/or e-learning. However, given that the definition of blended learning

that will be used within this research refers to a combination of online and face-to-face

activity, the literature relating to staff use of technology was deemed appropriate.

Time, lack of staff skills to develop online learning and poor academic recognition of

online teaching appear to be common barriers to staff engagement (MacKeough and

Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009, Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007). MacKeough and

Fox (2008) surveying staff at Dublin City University as part of the development of an e-

learning strategy found that staff had difficulty finding the time to integrate e-learning

into their courses. Some staff felt that online learning was a distraction from face-to-

face teaching and there were concerns about the lack of engagement by students. Staff

also commented that there was more recognition within the University for research than

for innovative teaching. Furthermore, staff claimed that there was inadequate support

and there was fear about the complexity of online learning. Schneckenberg (2009),

20

also, claims that the “imbalance between the value of research and teaching

performance” (Schneckenberg, 2009:420) is a barrier and criticises staff development

activities for being too long and for not relating to teaching practice. He suggests a

movement from ICT training to competency based development, complimented by

institutional incentives. Samarawickrema and Stacey’s (2007) case study at Monash

University, in Australia, also identified similar barriers to staff engagement with respect

to web based learning but concluded,

Technology has less to do with academic teachers’ technology skills and their preference to use technology and more to do with the difference in their motivations, approaches to change and to their learning and applying of new processes (Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007:332)

It will be seen that this observation is also prevalent within the findings in this research.

Influence of Learning and Teaching Strategies

As it has already been stated, post Dearing universities were expected to address the

quality of their learning and teaching with limited resources (Garrison and Vaughan,

2008, Conole et al., 2007) by developing learning and teaching strategies. With respect

to the use of e-learning, some institutions such as Sterndale (2004) made the decision to

incorporate this in their University strategy whilst others, Oxford Brookes (Sharpe et al.

2006) and Staffordshire University (Stiles 2003) have developed e-learning strategies.

The UCISA survey (Browne et al., 2008) cited university learning and teaching

strategies as being the key strategies that influenced the use of technology within

teaching, additionally the report stated that there had been a rise since 2005 in e-

learning strategies. The impact of strategy may be a result of universities implementing

a range of educational, technological and organisational strategic interventions

identified to encourage the use of technology within learning and teaching (Conole et

21

al., 2007). According to Connole et al. (2007), educational interventions are concerned

with developing learning and teaching approaches and include staff development

activities, which has already been identified as a major priority for Sterndale, as well as

staff sharing practice, which we will see is important within the Faculty of Social

Sciences. Technological interventions include the development and implementation of

new technologies, for example, Sterndale has just implemented a new virtual learning

environment. Finally, organisational interventions, relate to university strategy or

external influences such as quality assurance.

However, strategy does not appear in UCISA’s (Browne et al.,2008) top five drivers

and Sterndale’s (2007) e-learning benchmarking exercise reported the limited influence

of the University strategy, in fact the report found that the main rationales for staff using

e-learning were practical, they were to address rising student numbers and the increase

of software tools for learning and teaching. Smith (2007) argues that the lack of staff

engagement with university strategy may be because of the language used within

university strategy. According to Smith institutions need to identify what motivates

their staff and understand that,

what constitutes progress in education is value laden and subjective, not Universal (Smith, 2007:73).

Scott (2003) states that,

people will not engage or stick with a change effort unless they see it as being relevant desirable and feasible for them to do so (Scott, 2003:73)

He argues that change takes time; it is complex, subjective and cyclical. He argues that

the most successful changes require a team approach involving those occupied in the

learning process, with strong leadership. Some institutions are possibly beginning to

understand this by implementing long-term strategies, for example, Sterndale’s learning

and teaching strategy. In addition, we will see in this research the importance of the role

22

of the Head of Learning and Teaching in implementing strategic interventions via the

Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy.

Conclusion

Higher education has begun to use technology within learning and teaching to address

the issues associated with the impact of organisational changes resulting from the

implementation of government educational policy. Within their teaching staff have seen

the opportunities associated with the use of technology to enhance the quality of the

learner experience (Browne et al., 2008, Sharpe et al. 2006). Teachers have understood

that learners still value face-to-face teaching but have some expectations in relation to

the use of technology (JISC 2007) so in order to address these, blended models of

learning have been developed which combine both traditional and online elements (Jara

and Mohamad 2007). Strategically, institutions have also begun to focus on the use of

technology to support learners and are beginning to understand the importance of

blended learning approaches. Institutions like Oxford Brookes (Sharpe et al. 2006) and

Staffordshire University (Stiles 2003) have developed e-learning strategies to address

this whilst institutions like Sterndale University have opted to integrate e-learning and

blended learning within their university and learning and teaching strategies. In order to

encourage staff engagement with use of technology universities have implemented a

number of strategic interventions (Conole et al. 2007) via action plans (Stiles 2003,

Sharpe et al., 2006, Garrison and Kanick, 2004, Sterndale, 2006). However, for

Sterndale (2007) and UCISA (Browne et al. 2008) respondents, strategy does not

appear to be a major driver in adopting blended learning. Some research shows that

barriers exist with respect to staff engagement with integrating technology within

teaching, such as time to develop, lack of academic recognition and poor skills

23

(MacKeough and Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009, Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007)

and possibly a general sceptism of the benefits of online learning (MacKeough and Fox,

2008 Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007). These observations provide the context for

this research. The literature also informed the development of the propositions for the

influences and the barriers relating to Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy and the

use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social Sciences.

24

Chapter 2

Research Design and Methodology

This chapter will provide an overview of the research design and methodology. As this

is based on Yin’s case study approach, a summary of this will be provided within the

critical context presented by Flyvbjerg (2006). This will be illustrated by the

implementation of the components of case study research, presented by Yin (2003) and

Soy (1997), including the establishment of propositions within the area of study.

Finally, an overview of the data collection techniques and the data analysis approach

that was used to interpret the findings will be presented.

Strategic context

This research investigates the influence of Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy on

the use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social Sciences. In the previous

chapter an overview of Sterndale’s strategic commitment to supporting the

implementation of e-learning and blended learning, as illustrated in the University

Strategic Plan (Sterndale 2004), Sterndale’s Learning and Teaching Strategy (SLTS)

(Sterndale 2006) and within its policy on the Minimum Standards of Online Learning

and Teaching (Sterndale 2009), was provided. In order to understand how strategy may

influence learning and teaching activities within faculties it is useful to see the

hierarchical context of the strategic plan together with the governance of the Sterndale’s

learning and teaching strategy:

25

Stermdale’s Learning and Teaching Strategic Document Hierarchy

HEFCE Aims & Objectives:

E.g., widen. part.; enhance.

Learning teaching research

Sterndale Strategic Plan 2004-2010

Sterndale Learning & Teaching Strategy 2006-

2010

Sterndale Minimum Standards of Online

Learning & Teaching Provision

Faculty of Social Sciences Learning &Teaching

Strategy

Faculty Learning, Teaching & Assessment Online Policy

26

Sterndale’s Learning and Teaching Strategy Governance

Owner: University

Uni responsibility: PVC Academic

&Research

Academic Standards & Quality Committee

Faculty responsibility: Faculty Head

Implementation: Head of Learning &

Teaching

Faculty Academic Standards & Quality

Committee

Quality AssuranceQuality

Enhancement

27

It can be seen from the diagrams that HEFCE’s strategic objectives influence

Sterndale’s strategic plan, the learning and teaching objectives are then consolidated

into Sterndale’s Learning and Teaching Strategy (SLTS), which is implemented within

the faculties via a Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS). The owner of the

SLTS is the University, implementation lies within the faculty with the Head of

Learning and Teaching, via the FLTS. There are associated SLTS policies, in the

context of this research the most appropriate is the Faculty’s, Learning, Teaching and

Assessment Online – Faculty benchmarks policy.

Unit of Analysis

Sterndale’s Minimum Standards for Online Learning policy was influenced by existing

practice within the faculties of Architecture and the Built Environment and of Social

Sciences; both of these already had implemented policies categorising online learning

and assessment activities. A decision was, therefore, made to choose one of these

faculties as the unit of analysis (Yin 2003) or the case study for this research, and the

Faculty of Social Sciences was selected. This decision was influenced, in part, by the

fact that the Faculty had a benchmarking policy for online learning which provided a

definition of blended learning:

Web dependent and combines online and traditional methods. (Faculty of Social Sciences, Sterndale University 2008:1)

In addition, the faculty is quite advanced in its use of blended learning. Blended

learning is one of its priority areas within its Learning and Teaching Strategy.

[Priority] Supporting the transition from a predominantly document based VLP to blended learning. (Faculty of Social Sciences, Sterndale University, 2006:1)

28

Furthermore, in the last academic year the Faculty started a Blended Learning Group

which has a strategic context as it is chaired by the Head of Learning and Reaching and

is a sub-group of the Faculty Learning and Teaching group. The Learning and Teaching

group is answerable to the Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Group.

Initially the aim was to have a Faculty focus group to capture data. However, it was too

difficult to arrange this given that it needed to take place at the beginning of the

academic year and staff were unable to plan their time until they had received their

teaching timetables. A decision was therefore made to interview teaching staff within

the Faculty. These staff were selected from the Blended Learning Group, which is

comprised of teaching staff who are enthusiastic about the use of e-tools to enhance

learning and teaching. The Head of Learning and Teaching and the Faculty Head were

also selected for interview in order to provide a strategic context. The interviewee roles

are slightly different from their actual roles to ensure anonymity. In addition, a decision

was, made to synonymise each of the interviewee roles in relation to their engagement

with blended learning and these categories are in the attribution of statements and

quotes within the findings.

Existing Role Blended Learning RoleLecturer:Teaches on and off campus

Beginner

Senior lecturer and course leader: Teaches on campus and distance learning students

Intermediate

Part time lecturer: Teaches on campus; provides Faculty e-learning support

Early adopter

Lecturer: Teaches on campus: provides Faculty e-learning support

Innovator

Faculty Head of Learning and Teaching: Teaches on campus students and responsible for learning and teaching development in the Faculty

Strategist

Faculty head: Managers the Faculty with the support of the Faculty executive, occasionally teaches

Manager

29

Approach

A decision was made to use a case study approach for this research as case studies can

be “informative about experiences of the average person or institution” (Yin, 200o:48).

According to Yin (2003:1), a case study is the preferred strategy when:

How or why questions are being posed, e.g. “How has the University learning

and teaching strategy influenced the use of blended learning” “Why has

university learning and teaching strategy influenced the use of blended

learning”.

The researcher has little control over events. In this research, the researcher is

not part of the academic community that is being studied hence has no influence

on the teaching decisions made by staff within this research.

The focus is on contemporary phenomenon within some real life context, where

the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not evident (Yin, 2009:18).

In this research, the phenomenon is the university learning and teaching strategy

and the context is the use of blended learning by staff within the faculty of

Social Sciences.

Yin (2009:18) states

Because the phenomenon and context are not always distinguishable in real life situations technical characteristics including data collection and data analysis strategies” become part of the technical definition (Yin, 2009:18).

This is illustrated in the following table, which provides an overview of the case study

methodological characteristics together with the strategies that were employed to

address these particular characteristics.

30

Alignment of Methodology with Strategy

Case study characteristic Strategy

More variables than data points, dealt

with within one result

Hierarchy of themes, relating to

strategic influences and the use of

blended learning

A reliance of multiples sources of

evidence, with data triangulation

Multiple sources will include data such

as, interview evidence and strategic

documents

The development of theoretical

propositions that guide data collection

Propositions identified influenced by the

literature review

It was also thought that as staff may have different understandings of what learning and

teaching strategy is, a case study approach would provide a more in-depth exploration

into what could be considered complex phenomenon in a way that other qualitative and

quantitative methodologies might not provide.

There are three types of case study approaches (Yin 2009 and Tellis 2007). Firstly, the

exploratory case study, which is often used as an initial stage of a piece of social

research. The second type is the explanatory case study, which can be used in causal

research. The third type is the descriptive case study, which is the approach that was

used in this research as it is more appropriate for considering theory that describes a

given phenomenon, such as describing and identifying the characteristics of university

learning and teaching strategy that influence the use of blended learning.

31

It was hoped that the outputs of the case study would be of particular value to the staff

teaching within the wider university community, in particular staff who may be

considering adopting a blended learning approach. It may, also, indirectly or directly

influence strategic practices across the university, by providing a greater understanding

of how staff engage with strategy.

Criticism of the Case Study Approach

A number of criticisms have been levied at the case study approach to research, for

example, that it is only an exploratory tool, that it can be difficult to establish reliability

and generality within findings and that it is open to bias (Soy 1997). Flyvbjerg (2006)

counters this by addressing several misunderstandings about case study research which

relate to the issues of scientific method, generalising and subjectivity. The first one is

that general theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete practical knowledge.

According to Flyvbjerg “context-dependent knowledge and experience are at the very

heart of expert activity” and using only “context-independent knowledge” limits

analytical rationality and is “inadequate” when trying to find the “best results”

(Flyvbjerg, 2006:222). He argues, “predictive theories and universals cannot be found

in study of human affairs” (Flyvbjerg, 2006:224). In addressing the misunderstanding

that you cannot easily generalise using the case study approach, and therefore it cannot

be considered as scientific, he claims that generalising is “overrated” (Flyvbjerg,

2006:224) and is limiting, stating that,

a purely descriptive phenomenological case study without any attempt to generalize can be certainly be of value in this process and has often cut a path to scientific innovation (Flyvbjerg, 2006:227)

32

However, Yin also addresses this criticism by stating that it is possible to generalise

between case studies, and like experiments, case studies are generalisable to theoretical

propositions (Yin 2003).

In response to the criticism that case studies are best for generating hypotheses as an

initial stage within the research process, Flyvbjerg agrees that case studies are useful for

generating and testing hypotheses, however, he claims that,

it is often more important to clarify deeper cause behind a given problem and its consequences than to describe the symptoms of the problem and how frequently they occur (Flyvbjerg, 2006:229)

Berg (2007) also argues that a case study is capable of examining simple or complex

phenomenon.

Answering the criticism of subjective bias towards verification case study research,

Flyvbjerg, contends that the advantage of a case study is that it can closely analyse “real

life situations and tests views directly to phenomena as they unfold in practice” and he

maintains that it is “falsification not verification that characterises the case study”

(Flyvbjerg, 2006:235). Flyvbjerg claims that this is an issue in all research methods

such as quantitative methods because the researcher does not get close to those being

studied. Finally, in response to the claim that it is difficult to summarize case studies, he

agrees with this in relation to the process, however, he argues this is not always

desirable to generalize that “good studies should be read as narratives in their entirety”

(Flyvbjerg, 2006:241).

Within the context of this research, it is felt that this approach facilitated the

investigation into complex phenomenon, the influence of university learning and

teaching strategy. This can be considered complex because this could refer to actual

33

strategy referring to learning and teaching, for example, SLTS, areas within a strategy,

as with the University strategic plan or even strategic interventions relating to Faculty

Learning and Teaching Strategy priorities and within the context of this research all,

these aspects were considered. In order to obtain the level of detail required the

research involved the analysis of teaching staff narratives within the context of the

literature on blended learning, which appears to suggest that the main driver is learner

enhancement (Browne et al., 2008, Garrison and Vaughan, 2008 Sharpe et. al, 2006).

With regards generalising the findings, there were some common influences and

barriers, within the Faculty on the use of blended learning, which to some extent related

to the literature on blended learning. However, it could be argued to make fully

successful generalisations the observations within the literature should be within the

context of the influence of university learning and teaching strategy.

Theory

Yin argues,

The reliance on theoretical concepts to guide the design and data collection for case studies remains one of the most important strategies for completing successful case studies. (Yin, 2003:3)

The rationale for this is that it:

can help select cases aids in defining a complete and appropriate description when undertaking

descriptive studies can support generalisations (Yin, 2003 in Berg, 2007:285)

However, referring to the work of Fernandez (2005) and Eisenhardt (1989) Berg

(2007:285) argues that the case study approach can be used, also, to generate theory

because it has three strengths:

1. Theory building from case studies is likely to produce theory

34

2. Theory can be tested by subsequent studies

3. The resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid via constant

comparison and questioning

Thus, theoretical observations can be a consequence of data collection and the

interpretations of this data made throughout the case study. Within this research, theory

relates to the propositions relating to the influences on and barriers to using blended

learning generated from the literature review. These were used as the basis of the coding

categories but they were developed and added to within the data analysis process.

Finally, these propositions were discussed within the context of the influence of

Sterndale’s strategies and the associated literature.

Research Design

Denscombe (2007:36) argues that the value of a case study is lost if attention is not

given to the processes that lead to the outcomes. He states that the real value of a case

study is that it offers an opportunity to explain why certain outcomes might happen,

more than just presenting outcomes. Taking a systematic approach, Yin (2003) proposes

that the following should be the components of a case study:

1. study questions

2. propositions

3. unit of analysis

4. logic of linking data to propositions

5. criteria for interpreting findings

35

However, Soy (1997) claims that a case study should have the following steps:

1. Determine and define questions

2. Select the cases and determine data gathering and analysis techniques

3. Prepare to collect data

4. Collect data in the field

5. Evaluate and analyse the data

6. Prepare the report

The research plan for this study applied a combination of both these approaches.

1. Define research question

2. Select case

3. Develop propositions based on the literature review

4. Develop interview questions

5. Collect data

6. Analyse data linking to propositions

7. Interpret data within the context of the research question

Propositions

Initially a series of propositions relating to the influences and barriers on the use of

blended learning, based on the literature review were created:

Influence propositions:

Quality of learning and teaching

Meeting student expectations

Widening participation/inclusiveness

Flexible learning

36

Dealing with organisational changes

Efficient delivery of learning

Operating in a global context

Development of student skills

Development of academic skills

Barriers propositions:

No academic recognition

No time to integrate into teaching

Distraction from face-to-face teaching

Lack of student engagement

Inadequate support

Too complex

Staff development not relating to practice

Poor staff motivation

These propositions were referred to in the analysis of the data acquired from the

interviews and the institutional documents (Yin 2003).

In the analysis, it was found that some these propositions could relate to learning and

teaching choices and/or strategy, depending on the context in which the interviewee

referred to them.

37

Study questions

Soy (1997) states that a case study should have a research focus which is constantly

referred to during the study, a question or questions that determine the purpose of the

study. As has already been stated in the overview of the case study approach these

questions should ask how and why teaching staff within the Faculty of Social Sciences

are using blended learning and whether this is influenced by the University’s learning

and teaching strategy. The interview and the questions within the interview were

designed in order to facilitate the answering these how and why questions. All

interviewees were asked similar questions; there were minor adjustments to

accommodate for the role of the interviewee. Questions were divided into two sections:

Section one: Academic Practice: These questions were to provide a context and to

identify the learning and teaching strategies that influence the use of blended learning

together with the barriers. Interviewees were asked in relation to their use of blended

learning to provide:

The context/s

Their rationale/s

How they obtained their ideas

Hindrances to using blended learning

Observations with respect to colleagues’ attitudes to using blended learning

Observations with respect to the impact of student expectations

38

Section 2: Strategic: These questions were aimed at identifying the Faculty and the

University’s strategic approaches to blended learning: Interviewees were asked in

relation to their use of blended learning provide:

Details of the Faculty and University strategic approach

Observations with respect to Faculty expectations

Observations with respect to Faculty and University support

Details of University and Faculty incentives

Data Gathering Techniques

A multimodal approach was adopted, as guidance states that case studies are likely to be

much more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of

information (Colorado State University 2008). This approach involved gathering data

from selected University strategic documents and structured interviews in order to

identify categories that were influenced by the propositions generated from the literature

review:

Strategic Documents Selected

Sterndale Strategic Plan (2004-2010) (SSP)

Sterndale Learning and Teaching Strategy (2006-2010) (SLTS)

Faculty of Social Sciences Learning, Teaching and Assessing Online –

School Benchmarks (FLTAO)

Faculty of Social Sciences Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS)

39

Structured Interviews

6 interviews (see above), captured with a digital recorder, transcribed using

“Express Scribe”

Data Preparation

The interview questions were piloted on a Head of Learning and Teaching and a

Teaching Assistant within another faculty. On a practical level, it was useful to carry out

the pilot interviews to assess the timing. It was desirable to keep the interviews to one

hour as the staff involved were in a middle of a busy teaching schedule and were

required to fit the interview around other commitments. The pilots also helped in

picking up a couple of minor errors in the permissions form. Feedback was requested at

the end of each pilot interview on the process itself, particularly on my role and on the

clarity of the questions. The feedback was mainly positive but the following minor

changes were made because of both this and my general observations:

Interview questions were distributed before the interview to give the

interviewee the opportunity to prepare as well as identify any question

he/she did not feel comfortable asking.

Where possible the interviews were carried out in a booked room away from

the interviewee’s work place. This allowed me to set-up the room

appropriately and to carry out sound testing. However, the Faculty Head’s

interview took place in his office. His interview was at the end of the

scheduled interviews and by that time, I was familiar with the interview

process.

40

Questions were organised into sections (see study questions above) and

numbered to aid easier recording and note taking.

At the beginning of the interview, the context for the research was provided

with reference to findings in other studies to induct the interviewee into the

research.

Ethics

Denscombe (2007:141) states that researchers should respect the rights and dignity of

those participating and researchers should operate with honesty and integrity. He argues

that researchers should abide by the following principles:

1. The interest of the participant should be protected

2. Researchers should avoid deception and misrepresentation

3. Participants should give informed consent.

The interviewees were asked to give their consent to taking part in the research and the

purpose of the data collection, storage and use was clearly explained. The interviews are

anonymous, and on the request of the Head of the Faculty, a pseudonym has been used

for the University and some of its organisational aspects, apart from the subject areas,

which initially it was felt might have been important in the data analysis but turned out

to be less significant than expected. Approval was received from the University of Hull

ethics committee and the Faculty Head gave formal permission to carry out the research.

41

Data Analysis

A “Grounded Theory” approach was implemented using “Axial Coding” where the

propositions (see above) were identified as categories or sub categories and

relationships and relationships were made between the categories, sub categories and

the research question. For example:

I(Influence) (Category) Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching: (sub

category) Extending activities and communication beyond the classroom

B (barrier) (Category) Time: (sub category) to embed e-learning

A transcript was produced for each interview and each transcript was coded using this

approach. This approach allowed some flexibility within the coding for the inclusion of

any additional categories and sub-categories that might arise during the data analysis.

The coded results for each interview were collated within a template, which was

organised into question areas for each interviewee. As there were not many interviews,

this process was carried out manually rather than using software.

Yin (2009:101) states that documentary information should be “the object of explicit

data collection plans” and that within case studies the use of documents is important to

“corroborate and augment evidence from existing sources” (Yin, 2009:103).

Additionally, all the main strategic documents that mention the use of technology or

blended learning were coded using the proposition influences.

42

Reliability

Reliability considers whether the same results can be generated in repeated studies

(University of Colorado 2008). As this is a case study, it may be difficult to make

generalisations that will be applicable to other organisations and Opie (2003) states

reliability should not be used as a criterion to assess the goodness in research. However,

it will be seen that some generalisations can be made in relation to the influences and

barriers that do relate to the literature. However, as has already been stated the

possibility of generalising may be limited if the research within the literature has not

been carried out within a similar context.

Validity

Validity is concerned with whether the study reflects or assesses the specific concept

(University of Colorado 2008), in this case the influence of universities strategies on the

use of blended learning within a faculty. Colosi (1997) presents the following categories

of validity, which can be examined in research:

1. Conclusion validity, asks if there is a relationship between the research area

and the observed outcome. For example, “How and why the University learning

and teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning.”

2. Internal Validity, according to Opie (2003:68), is the “relationship between a

claim and the result of the data-gathering process”. Both Soy (1997) and Yin

(2003) claim internal validity relates to how rigorous the study has been and

whether it has taken into account alternative explanations. Within this study,

43

adopting a multimodal approach to data collection and making additional

observations throughout will help to ensure that the research approach is

rigorous.

3. Construct validity, Soy (1997) claims this is where the correct measure has

been adopted for the construct being examined, for example, in this research did

the case study approach identify how and why the University learning and

teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning.

4. External validity refers to the ability to generalize the results of the study in

other settings. This may be more difficult to show in this research as the case

study approach was chosen because it was appropriate to study something that

was happening at a specific time and in a specific place, the influence of a

particular university’s learning and teaching strategy on blended learning within

one faculty in a particular UK university.

Conclusion

Denscombe (1997:45) presents a series of criticisms of the case study approach. One

criticism is that it is difficult to produce credible generalisations, although Opie (2007)

questions the importance of this. However, as this research is based on a faculty case

study together with documentary evidence, there may be an opportunity to present

similarities within an institutional context. Another criticism is that this approach only

produces soft data and that the outputs are merely descriptive not evaluative. However,

the university teaching community may find a descriptive account useful and the

multimodal approach adopted did appear to produce enough data to make evaluations.

44

In addition, Denscombe argues that the presence of the researcher can have an impact,

“the observer effect”. However as this study did not observe the teacher in situ, teachers

were interviewed about their experiences, this may be less of an issue, although it must

be acknowledged that the interviewer had prior knowledge of teaching activities within

the faculty, so there may have been some possibility of bias. There was also the

possibility that the analysis brought an element of subjectivity to the study, but it was

hoped that the multimodal approach and the literature review limited the impact of this.

45

Chapter 3

Results and Findings

Applying Yin’s (2003) case study approach, as outlined in the previous chapter, the

analysis was based on a series of coded categories and sub categories, influenced by the

propositions generated by the literature review. Axial coding was used to identify the

interrelationships between these categories. This was a multi-modal approach analysing

strategic documents and interviews. The results and findings are organised into two

parts. The first part presents the category and sub-category influences for using blended

learning identified within the following selected University and Faculty learning and

teaching strategic documents:

Sterndale Strategic Plan 2004 – 2010 (SSP)

Sterndale Learning and Teaching Strategy (SLTS)

Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS)

Faculty Learning and Teaching and Assessing Online (FLTAO)

The analysis of the strategic documents provides a context for the second part of the

results and findings, the analysis of the interviews, which identifies the interrelationship

between the barriers and influences on the use of blended learning by staff within the

Faculty with the University’s learning and teaching strategy.

Strategic Document Influence Categories

The research question is an attempt to answer how and why the University’s learning

and teaching strategy influences the use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social

Sciences. The SLTS, FLTS, FLTAO and SSP all use the term blended learning but the

46

SLTS and in particular, SSP often interchange this with the terms e-learning and online

learning. This is possibly because the SLTS and SSP were written at a time when the

University had not formally developed a framework for blended learning, the Strategic

Plan was written in 2004 and the Learning and Teaching Strategy in 2006. A decision

was therefore made to analyse all the references to the use of technology within learning

and teaching mentioned within the strategic documents.

Enhancing the Quality of Learning and Teaching

This category relates to the delivery of learning and teaching. The following sub-

categories could be identified within this influence:

Access to resources: This will be addressed by providing “seamless on-line”

access, to “interactive resources” to ensure student engagement (SSP).

Flexible learning: There will be considerations with respect to “time, place and

pace” (SSP) regarding the delivery of learning.

Collaborative learning: The facilitation of this learning environment will be

through a combination of “collaborative environments and interactive resources”

(SSP), facilitated by “electronic systems and e-forms of collaboration” (SLTS).

Inclusivity: The learning environment will be “rich and blended…for all

students, whether on-campus or studying at a distance or flexible mode” (SSP)

Managed learning environment: Staff and students will have access to “up-to-

date data” (SSP) that will “sustain curriculum design and e-pedagogies” (SLTS).

It could be argued that this category of enhancing the quality of learning and teaching

has an interrelationship with all the other influence categories identified within the

strategic documents. For example, the success of enhancing the quality of learning and

teaching is dependent, on developing staff and student skills as well as, providing

47

adequate support. By developing more effective and efficient processes, the University

will be better placed to support its diverse student population, which in turn may

enhance its reputation. The enhancement of the quality of learning and teaching was

identified as a proposition because it was prominent within the literature (Browne et al.,

2008, Garrison and Vaughan, 2008, Jara and Mohamad, 2007). Sharpe et al. (2006),

also identified institutional rationales relating to organisational changes, such as,

supporting a diverse student population, enabling flexible learning and efficient delivery

of learning, which could relate to the sub-categories inclusivity, flexible learning and a

managed learning environment. In addition, this category could relate to universities’

preoccupation with quality assurance and enhancement (Smith 2007, Conole et al.

2007).

Staff Development

This category relates to the University’s commitment to developing staff skills with

respect to the use of technology in learning and teaching. The following sub-categories

could be identified within this influence:

University staff development: There is a commitment to providing “a range of

staff development opportunities focusing on pedagogy and specialist training on

the virtual learning environment and other technologies” (SSP), as the

University acknowledges the importance of staff having a “skill-mix” in order to

fulfil academic, administrative and technical roles” (SLTS).

Faculty staff development: The Faculty intends to provide peer observation,

support for the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) and to

host a staff development week (FLTS).

48

The importance of this category will be seen in the interview findings. Staff

development was identified as a proposition, as it is seen as an organisational

intervention (Conole, et al. 2007 Stiles, 2003).

Support

This category relates to support provided by the University for staff using technology.

The following sub-category could be identified within this influence:

Elearning Development Unit (EDU): This central unit will provide support

and guidance on the “production of elearning resources, assessments and

courseware (SLTS). The Faculty acknowledges that the implementation of

blended learning within the Faculty is dependent on how the work of this unit

“evolves” (FLTS).

Despite this not being in the original propositions identified in the previous chapter, this

category could have an interrelationship with the staff development category, as helping

staff to use technology could facilitate the development of their skills.

Student Skills

This category relates to the development of students’ academic and digital skills that

can be facilitated by the use of technology within teaching. The following sub-

categories could be identified within this influence:

Digital literacy skills: The University claims that the development of these

skills will enhance student employability (SSP) and that these skills are “critical

factor for success” of the University’s learning and strategy (SLTS).

49

Academic skills, information, literacy and numeracy: The University

support intends to facilitate the development of these skills by providing a

“bank of online student learning materials” (SLTS).

This category influence was in the original propositions, given in the previous chapter

(Sharpe et al., 2006). This influence could also relate to JISC’s (2007) student

expectations research. However, it will be seen that this was not an important influence

on the use of blended learning for most of the interviewees as one interviewee

(beginner) only identified it.

Student Expectations

This category relates to managing student expectations with respect to the use of

technology to deliver learning. The following sub-category could be identified within

this influence:

Access to resources: The Faculty has made a commitment to clarifying for

students the use of technology within teaching by providing a statement of use

within course handbooks(FLTAO)

This was identified as a proposition in the previous chapters because it was identified

within UCISA’s 2008 survey. However, it will be seen in the interviews that student

expectations with respect to the use of technology appear to be limited to access to

resources rather than online activities, which relates to the JISC’s (2007) findings. This

category may interrelate with the student skills category, as there could be a correlation

between student skill level and expected uses of technology in teaching.

50

University Reputation

This category relates to enhancing the University’s reputation and thus attracting

students. The following sub-category could be identified within this influence:

Providing a variety of courses: The University wants to ensure that it is

attractive to businesses and professions, it also, wants to reach new markets and

to make it the “preferred choice” (SSP) for potential students.

This was not identified as a proposition, although it could relate to the proposition

operating in a global context identified by Sharp et al. (2006) and the

internationalisation of education (Ramsden, 2008, Bradwell, 2009).

Interviews: Influences and Barriers on the Use of Blended Learning

These are the findings from the interviews with respect to the identified influences and

barriers on the use of blended learning within the Faculty. The analysis and

identification of the influences and barriers is within the context of the research

question, so within each category influence and barrier there is an attempt to correlate

the findings with the University’s learning and teaching strategy.

Influences on the Use of Blended Learning

Enhancing the Quality of Learning and Teaching

This category relates to what emerges through the data as to influences on the decisions

made by teachers in relation to the delivery of learning. The following sub-categories

could be identified within this influence:

Active Learning: This approach was taken to enhance the course and engage

the students (intermediate)

51

Online assessment: A course team decided to use this because it was a different

type of assessment method (beginner). The early adopter decided to use online

assessment to prepare students for their exams.

Enhancing-face-to-face teaching: The online content made available for

students was different to that which students were getting in the classroom

(beginner, innovator, early adopter)

Feedback: Video feedback was used to provide “quicker” feedback and to

encourage student engagement (innovator).

International students: A course team “thought through the delivery of their

material and how to engage students who were from a different country and

different time zone” (strategist).

This influence was prominent within all the interviews, this is possibly because at the

heart of a teacher’s vocation is the enhancement of the learner experience. As it has

already been stated, with respect to this influence within the strategic documents, it

could be claimed that this has an interrelationship with all the other influences identified

in the interviews, as they all, to some extent, have an impact on teaching and the learner

experience. This influence was also within the original propositions found within the

literature and identified within the previous chapter (Browne et al., 2008, Garrison and

Vaughan 2007). However, even though this influence was prevalent within the strategy

documents, it was difficult to identify a relationship between the illustrations provided

by the interviewees and University strategy.

Addressing an Operational Issue

This category relates to the delivery of teaching. The following sub-categories could be

identified within this influence:

52

Location of students: This was with respect to teaching students off-campus on

professional courses (beginner) and international students (strategist).

Group size: This related to teaching large groups of students, where blended

learning was seen to,

solve a lot of [the Faculty’s] operational dilemmas, in terms of how [the Faculty] assess [and] mark, large groups [the] staff student ratio. (strategist).

Also, managing small groups on “small courses” where there has been a

“struggle to recruit”, as illustrated on one course,

[where there was] a very small group so there were online activities the group met alternative weeks (intermediate).

It could be argued that this category also interrelates with the category enhancing the

quality of learning and teaching because considerations relating to the operational

aspects could enhance the learner experience. It could also relate to the propositions,

dealing with organisational changes and efficient delivery of learning (Sharp et al.

2006). However, it is difficult to identify a direct relationship with University strategy

in this category, although, the interviewees responses in this category could be seen to

show a movement towards flexible and inclusive approaches, identified in the strategic

documents.

Staff Development

This category relates to staff development activities organised by the University and the

Faculty, such as workshops, events and peer support. The following sub-categories

could be identified within this influence:

Faculty organised:

o Peer observation: This was in the area of teaching using blended

learning (intermediate)

53

o Staff development week: For the staff development week blended

learning was a theme (intermediate, innovator, early adopter, strategist)

o Faculty away day: At this event, staff were introduced to different

models of online learning together with illustrations of use (beginner).

o Staff appraisals: Part of the appraisal looks at “issues around learning

styles” (manager).

o Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education: This is run by the

University but requires the support of Faculty, with respect to identifying

staff and freeing up their time to undertake the course. It was observed

that staff who had undertaken this “had more input in terms of elearning”

(strategist).

University:

o PGCHE: This is compulsory for all new staff (beginner) (also see

Faculty category above).

External:

o Conferences: This gave one interviewee the opportunity to see

innovative practice (innovator).

This category interrelates with the support category, which, is discussed below, as well

as the academic skills proposition, which was indentified as a strategic intervention

(Stiles 2003 Conole et al. 2007). This category is also prominent within the SSP, SLTS

and FLTS. With respect to the sub-category, Faculty organised activities, which

includes peer observation and the staff development week, these activities are priorities

in FLTS, which addresses SLTS. Regarding the University sub-category PGCHE,

FLTS states that the Faculty has made a commitment to funding this and the University

has made a strategic decision to ensure all new staff have this qualification.

54

Support

This relates to help given by colleagues and services within the Faculty and University.

The following sub-categories could be identified within this influence:

Faculty support:

o Colleagues: This was with respect to talking to work colleagues about

blended learning (beginner) and seeing their work (strategist).

o E-learning champions: Each department had an e-learning champion,

which was “someone people could go to, to get the help” (intermediate).

o Head of Learning and Teaching and Faculty Head: Both of these

roles have supported blended learning proposals, in relation to time and

resources (innovator).

o Implementation of the new VLE: The Faculty “organised support for

students and staff” (early adopter).

University support:

o Implementation of the new VLE: The University organised activities

that facilitated this and although there “was quite a lot of anxiety [about]

changing over to a new system…as a University on the whole [it] went

quite well” (early adopter).

o Elearning Development Unit (EDU): This Unit provides supporting

documents, assists with technical problems and helped to implement the

new VLE (innovator, early adopter, strategist and manager)

It has been stated that there is an interrelationship with this category and the staff

development category, as formal or informal support could help to develop an

individual’s skills and knowledge, and as a result, this relates to the academic skills

55

proposition given in the previous chapter. With respect to strategy, the EDU was

referred to in the SLTS and FLTS. Peer observation is a FLTS priority although seeing

colleagues’ work, mentioned by the strategist as an important influence, was not

discussed within this context. In addition, it will be seen that there is an interrelationship

with this category and the strategy category with respect to the roles of the Head of

Learning and Teaching and Faculty Head.

Strategy

This relates to explicit references to the influence of University and Faculty strategic

groups, roles and documents referred to by the interviewees. The following sub-

categories could be identified within this influence:

Faculty strategy:

o Documents:

FLTS: This provides a “strategic framework” (strategist). There

is “work within the FLTS” [relating to blended learning] which

is “influenced by SLTS” (intermediate).

This strategy is designed to underpin what the university wants to do it gives the Faculty a sense of direction because it gives [the Faculty] more control (early adopter).

FLTAO: This policy provides a “continuum and definitions [for]

where courses might be” (intermediate), there are “three different

models” (beginner). It states a “minimum level for what students

should have in their courses” (innovator).

o Groups:

Blended learning group: This is a sub-group of the learning and

teaching committee (intermediate).

o Roles:

56

Course leaders: These promote and encourage “uses of different

kind of pedagogy” (manager).

Faculty Head of Learning and Teaching: This role is

responsible “for the development of e-learning and blended

learning for driving it forward” (manager).

Quality manager: This role identifies good practice (manager)

University

o SLTS: see comments relating to FLTS

All the interviewees had an understanding of strategy and could articulate to some

extent its impact on Faculty learning and teaching activities. Understandably, the

intermediate, who is a course leader, the Head of Learning and Teaching and the

Faculty Head could articulate most clearly the Faculty strategic approach and the

relationship with the University learning and teaching strategy, although no SLTS

details were given. Three interviewees, the beginner, intermediate and innovator

acknowledged an awareness of the FLTAO, which benchmarks the use of technology

by the Faculty. Additionally, there is an interrelationship with the support category as

the Head of Learning and Teaching’s role is to implement and supports the priorities in

the FLTS. This category was not within the original propositions as it was not clearly

identified within the literature, for example, Sharpe et al. (2006) researched institutional

rationales but not specifically strategy and UCISA(Browne et al, 2008) had a strategy

category within its survey but it was not listed in its main drivers. There is also an

interrelationship with this category and other influence categories, where an

interrelationship between the influence and University strategy can be identified, for

example in the support and staff development categories.

57

Student Expectations

This category relates to the influence of student expectations with respect to access to

online activities and resources. The following sub-categories could be identified within

this influence:

Access to online content: Student expectations relate mainly to document

delivery (early adopter, innovator, beginner, intermediate).

Comparing courses: Students are beginning to compare and question the

resources they have access to on different courses (innovator, beginner,

intermediate, early adopter).

In this category it was perceived that student expectations related to the delivery of

online resources rather than learning activities, although students are appreciative of

“what gets beyond very basic document delivery” (early adopter) and students are not

“challenging in terms of their own online experiences” (strategist) reflecting JISC’s

(2007) findings. This was in the propositions (Browne et al., 2008); however, with

respect to University strategy only the intermediate’s response appears to have a

relationship with strategy as she mentions the FLTAO.

Barriers to Using Blended Learning

Staff attitude

This category relates what was reported as to the impact of staff feelings towards the

use of technology in learning and teaching. The following sub-categories could be

identified within this barrier:

It has no place in teaching: (beginner, manager):

[Some staff think] it is the scourge of any sensible pedagogy and what we need to be doing is working in a traditional way (manager).

58

Afraid of using it: some staff suffer from “technophobia” (intermediate) and

find using technology “a terrifying prospect and confusing” (innovator).

Do not want to go beyond basic use: mainly relating to staff using the VLE as

a repository for storing information (intermediate, beginner, innovator, early

adopter).

Concerns about impact on attendance: this was referred to by the beginner

who stated that there had been a “big debate” in her division in relation to

putting content in “the VLE and students just start using that rather than

[attending] sessions”. This interrelates with the influence enhancing the quality

of learning and teaching, sub-category, enhancing-face-to-face teaching, where

interviewees used online resources to enhance not replicate face-to-face

teaching.

This barrier category was in the original propositions (Stacey 2007). It could be argued

that it interrelates with the category barriers, staff development and support as negative

staff attitudes may result from lack of knowledge of pedagogic application of

technology. Despite the University and the Faculty making a commitment to staff

development and the Faculty providing guidance on expected benchmarks for online

delivery some staff appear to remain disengaged.

Staff Development

This category relates to approaches to staff development provided by the University.

The following sub-categories could be identified within this influence:

Does not relate to practice:

It is useful if it could be applied to something [to] make it a bit more real and pertinent, or else it’s forgotten (beginner).

59

Work [needs] to be done in terms of making the step between e-tools and how you could use them in a meaningful way and the design of a learning activity, joining up a set of activities. Regarding pedagogy [it’s] still limited and underdeveloped (strategist).

Embedding:

If there is an expectation that [staff] are going to do it, it needs to be flagged up (beginner).

The University puts people through equality and diversity courses and professional development [and] appraisal training, all academics should go on it, and it might be done online (intermediate).

There was a criticism that “training that was set-up for the VLE took place far too early before [staff] started using it” (beginner).

Dissemination of best practice: Some individuals think,

there is a limited range of what is capable of but there might be all sorts of things going on that [the faculty] doesn’t know about (strategist).

Staff development was identified as a major influence on implementing blended

learning and identified, by the University and the Faculty, as a strategic priority.

However, it could be seen that there are concerns that staff development presently does

not relate to pedagogic uses of technology and that it is not embedded within existing

practice. As a result, this category may have an interrelationship with staff motivation

category. This barrier was in the original propositions (Schneckenberg, 2009).

Support

This category relates to formal and informal help provided by the University. The

following sub-categories could be identified within this barrier:

Availability:

There’s lots of support available but its hidden (intermediate).

Some [staff] would benefit from a bit more basic support certainly in the early stages and the development of e-tools and distance learning materials [as more would] be achieved more quickly and more efficiently if there was more support available. If [there were] more people to do some of the preparatory work (manager)

60

From colleagues:

[Not having] anybody to discuss it with [or having] somebody at department meetings (beginner).

This was identified as a proposition (MacKeough and Fox, 2008) and in the influences

in the interview findings, it was noted that effective help could enhance the skills of

those accessing the support; also, it could have an impact on staff attitude if the support

is successful. Support was indentified in SLTS and FLTS with respect to the EDU but

the manager commented that more support was required. In addition, lack of support by

colleagues, as identified in the beginner’s interview, could interrelate with staff attitude

barrier, which may have an impact on engagement.

Formal recognition

This category relates to University rewarding staff for adopting blended learning

approaches. There has been little or no recognition with respect to this.

I sit on awards and titles committee and people have come through the learning and teaching route I haven’t seen one that’s been specifically around blended learning practices other things seem to be more valued. (strategist)

Also there were concerns that the University does not, “[recognise] excellence in

learning and teaching generally” (early adopter)

This was a proposition (MacKeough and Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009) and again,

this category could relate to staff attitude. If there is, no formal recognition of

innovative approaches to blended learning staff may be disinclined to commit time and

effort. It is an area that appears to be notably absent from the University’s strategic

documentation.

61

Time

This category refers to the availability or lack of time. The following sub-categories

could be identified within this barrier:

To fit around teaching (beginner, early adopter, intermediate): it is seen as an

“additional layer” that comes with the job (innovator) and it is within the context

of some senior staff having to deal “with a large admin burden” (strategist)

Takes to develop (beginner, early adopter, intermediate): it is time consuming

not just in training but the design and carrying it out (strategist). This needs to

acknowledged by the University “if it wants people to do it properly” (strategist)

the University needs to provide a “funding stream” for this activity (manager).

This was a proposition (MacKeough and Fox 2008) and despite the University’s

commitment to implementing blended learning there appears to be no reference to the

provision of extra resources to support this activity.

University Central Control

This category relates to the central control of processes. The following sub-categories

could be identified within this barrier:

Publishing on the web:

The [University] under the current management took an approach to the use of the web which if effectively destroyed my elearning stuff and a lot of my scholarship so and that put me back some years really and reduced my enthusiasm for doing stuff. And I am deeply suspicious of the institutions motives in this area (early adopter)

Obtaining software (early adopter, innovator): This relates to having to make a

business case.

The problem is you couldn’t always make a business case for stuff, such is the nature of this an awful lot of it will get dumped and you wont go back to it and you wont use once you have evaluated it. But you need to evaluate it to decide if it is good or not (innovator).

62

Support: “central units [EDU] are pressured, and are not as autonomous as they

might be” (early adopter).

This was not in the original propositions and the category only relates to the innovator

and early adopter interviews, individuals who are more advanced in their use of

technology. However, this category could interrelate with staff attitude as restricting

staff evaluating new technologies may de-motivate staff or have a negative impact on

the development of their skills, which, the University has made a strategic commitment

to.

Student Skills

This was identified by the beginner interviewee in the sub-categories of poor digital

literacy and access to technology, with respect to mature students,

who did not have a computer so they had to use a computer at home …because of the nature of where they worked they weren’t allowed access to open forum…a couple of students were really concerned about if they were going to be disadvantaged because they were typing with one finger and one hand.

This barrier was identified as an original proposition and it could be argued that this will

influence student engagement. This illustration reflects some of the recent findings by

JISC student expectations report (2007) which acknowledged that there was a digital

divide. The issue of digital literacy skills is a priority within SSP and SLTS. However,

the beginner’s experience is in relation to supporting off-campus students on

professional courses possibly identifies a group that has slipped through the net.

63

Conclusion

Yin (2003) claims that the case study approach is useful in answering how and why

research questions. With respect to how the University learning and teaching strategy

influences the use of blended learning, it could be seen to some extent that this is

through the Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy (FLTS). All the interviewees

appeared to understand the relationship between FLTS and Sterndale’s Learning and

Teaching Strategy (SLTS). In particular, the priorities within the FLTS relating to staff

development; the staff development week, PGCHE and possibly peer observation

appear to have had an impact on the interviewees’ use of blended learning. In addition,

there appeared to be an awareness of the details of the Faculty Learning and Teaching

and Assessing Online, however, only the intermediate interviewee articulated how this

had been implemented on her course. Answering the question why FLTS has had such

an influence, the main reason appears to be the support of the Head of Learning and

Teaching, who is responsible for implementing FLTS as all the interviewees made

positive references to this role together with the support of the Faculty Head and course

leaders. However, with respect to the most popular influence category for implementing

blended learning approaches, enhancing the quality of learning and teaching, despite

there being some interrelationships with other categories, it was difficult to make a

connection between the illustrations provided by the interviewees and University

strategy, despite this category also being prevalent in the strategic documents.

Taking into consideration the staff attitude barrier it appears that some staff are still not

engaged in the use of technology in teaching, this also includes course leaders

(beginner). Despite the acknowledged success of staff development within the Faculty,

according to the Head of Learning and Teaching there still needs to be considerable

64

work undertaken on the pedagogic uses of technology. There may, also be an

interrelationship with the staff development barrier and the staff attitude barrier, as poor

attitudes could be the result of lack of knowledge of pedagogic uses of technology. The

University, also, still appears to have not addressed the challenge of resourcing blended

learning with respect to providing income and freeing up staff time. In addition, the

University seems to have not acknowledged in its reward structure the use of innovative

blended learning approaches within teaching. Until these barriers are tackled within

University strategy staff may continue to be disengaged.

It has already been noted in the previous chapter that it may be difficult with the case

study approach to make generalisations that are applicable in other organisations or

even within an organisation. There may be an element of bias as interviewees, who are

teachers, were selected because of their perceived engagement with blended learning, as

they were part of the Faculty’s Blended Learning Group. This group is chaired by the

Head of Learning and Teaching, who has a pivotal role in the implementation of

learning and teaching strategy and this could be consequential in the interviewees’

knowledge of strategy. However, it could be said that the interviewees’ knowledge of

strategic implementation related to their role and with respect to the beginner,

colleagues’ engagement. Discounting the Head of Learning and Teaching and the

Faculty Head, who have strategic roles, the intermediate (course leader) had the best

knowledge of strategy and the beginner (lecturer, who teaches on and off campus) had

the least knowledge.

With respect to making generalisations relating to the literature, the barrier categories

did appear to have a clearer interrelationship with the original propositions. Regarding

the influence categories, although the most prominent influence for the interviewees

65

appeared to be the enhancement of the quality of learning and teaching, which reflects

the literature (Browne et al., 2008 Garrison and Vaughan 2008, Sterndale 2004) the

methodological approach and context of this research, is different to that within the

literature. Conversely, the staff development influence, which does appear to relate to

University strategy, does reflect Conole et al.’s (2007) observations on strategic

interventions.

On reflection, although the Faculty is progressing towards operationalising the

University’s learning and teaching strategy, as a consequence of the commitment of the

Head of Learning and Teaching, taking into account the barriers, it appears to some

extent the Faculty needs to continue this work and that the University needs to provide

more support. The Faculty Head stated there are certain people, such as course leaders,

that need to be aware of strategy and should be “driving the agenda forward”; however,

the experience of the beginner reveals that some senior staff are still not engaged. It

also appears that the University has begun to fulfil its obligation to developing staff

technical skills, but still needs to be progress in the development of staff pedagogic

skills in relation to their use of technology. In addition, the University has yet to

address, strategically, the resourcing of blended learning as well formally recognising

innovative academic practice within this area.

66

Chapter 4

Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations

The following will consider if the research carried out within this case study has

answered the question of how and why Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy has

influenced the use of blended learning within the Faculty of Social Sciences. This will

be within the theoretical context of the literature, which considers changes to learning

and teaching within Higher Education in England since the Dearing Report, in particular

the impact on teaching of demographic changes and new managerial approaches

concerned with quality assurance and enhancement and the consequential adoption of

blended learning teaching approaches. The methodological case study approach used

within this research will be reflected upon in particular its effectiveness in addressing

the research question. Finally, the results of the research within the given context will be

discussed and recommendations with respect to this analysis will be provided.

Discussion

Chapter 1 discussed how universities have dealt with the teaching challenges associated

with the major demographic changes in the student population that have resulted since

the Dearing Report, as a consequence of the government’s preoccupation with widening

participation. Over a ten-year period 1997-2007, the number of student enrolments

increased by 10% in all student groups. Part time study became more important in

addressing skills development with respect to the lifelong learning agenda and there was

considerable growth in non-EU students, in particular Chinese students (Ramsden

2008). The chapter, also, noted that this national picture appeared to be reflected in the

67

demographic composition of Sterndale. The chapter went on to discuss how

universities, like Sterndale have begun to address these organisational changes by

adopting new managerial approaches which have included considerations relating to the

enhancement of the quality of learning and teaching, an identified priority within the

Dearing Report (Conole et al., 2007, Deem, 1998). Universities started to develop

learning and teaching strategies similar to their U.S and Australian counterparts, (Gibbs

et al. 2000) which have integrated technological priorities with respect to its use within

teaching, another priority within the Dearing Report (Conole et al., 2007). At Sterndale,

the priorities relating to the use of technology within teaching outlined in its Strategic

Plan and Learning and Teaching Strategy mainly focus on the development of staff and

students skills; support for integrating technology within teaching; enhancing the

quality of learning and teaching and improving the University’s reputation.

However, chapter 1 noted despite institutional strategic endeavours, strategy does not

appear to be the main driver in using technology to enhance teaching (Browne et

al.2008) and there has been criticism that universities have failed to engage teaching

staff with strategy (Smith 2009). Independently of strategic expectations, individual

teachers had begun to consider how integrating technology within face-to-face teaching

could help to address a range of learning and organisational challenges, such as, student

engagement in large groups; developing student skills and improving off-campus access

to learning (Sharpe et al. 2006, Jara and Mohamad 2007, Browne et al. 2008). Some

commentators have defined the approach of integrating technology within face-to-face

teaching as blended learning (Sharpe 2006, Jara and Mohamad 2007). Sterndale has

also recently developed a policy for Minimum Requirements of Online Learning and

Teaching, which includes a definition of blended learning, which is, a combination of

“traditional and online learning approaches” where online participation has equal

68

priority with classroom activities (Sterndale, 2009:3). This definition was influenced by

the Faculty of Social Sciences definition, which can be found in its Policy for Learning,

Teaching and Assessing (FLTAO). However, this chapter, also acknowledged that

despite some teachers in universities considering how technology can enhance existing

pedagogic approaches, many teachers still remain disengaged from integrating

technology within teaching mainly because of lack of skills, inadequate support and

poor academic recognition (MacKeough and Fox, 2008, Schneckenberg, 2009,

Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007).

Taking into account the observations, this case study attempted to find if there is a

correlation between Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy and the use of blended

learning within the Faculty of Social Sciences, given that some of the literature appears

to show that university strategy is not a major influence (Sharpe et al., 2006, Browne et

al., 2008). The case study approach as outlined in Chapter 2 facilitated the construction

of interviewees’ detailed narratives on their use of blended learning within teaching

together with their reflections on the influences and barriers on the implementation of

this approach.

The most prominent influences on the use of blended learning within teaching identified

within the interviews were the enhancing of the quality of learning and teaching and

staff development. Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching was clearly

identifiable within the strategic documents, this influence specifically related to access

to up-to-date resources and flexible, collaborative and inclusive learning opportunities.

However, the sub-category influences within this influence identified within the

interviews related to providing active learning opportunities; using a different

assessment methods; adding value to face-to-face teaching; improving feedback and

69

supporting international students. Within the illustrations provided by the interviewees

there was no mention of the University’s learning and teaching strategy or strategic

interventions, as a result it is difficult to identify an interrelationship between University

learning and teaching strategy regarding the influence enhancing the quality of learning

and teaching. Regarding the influence of staff development, this was identified within

the strategic documents with respect to the improvement of staff, academic,

administrative and technical skills by providing staff development opportunities that

concentrated on pedagogic and specialist training on the use of the virtual learning

environment (Sterndale’s Strategic Plan and Learning and Teaching Strategy). Within

the Faculty of Social Sciences strategic approach, University staff development was

complemented by Faculty support for the PGCHE and the hosting of a staff

development week (Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy). The analysis of the

interviews identified peer observation, staff development week, PGHE and the away

day as being influential in introducing staff to blended learning approaches and thus it is

possible to see an interrelationship between staff development and University strategy.

With respect to staff development, it could be argued, that these findings reflect the

success of strategic interventions (Conole et. al 2007). However, as there appeared to be

no identifiable interrelationship with the interviewee responses with respect to the

enhancement of the quality of learning and teaching and University learning and

teaching strategy, despite it being a major University priority, this could show that staff

are not full engaged or aware of the strategic priorities of the University in this area.

Chapter 3 acknowledged that all interviewees had knowledge of University strategy and

could to some extent, describe its impact on learning and teaching within the Faculty.

The chapter also stated that those interviewees with management and strategic

responsibilities, the course leader, the Head of Learning and Teaching and the Faculty

70

Head could more clearly articulate the interrelationship between the Faculty strategic

approach and the Faculty’s and University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy. However,

the chapter also observed that there appeared to be an interrelationship between staff

knowledge of learning and teaching strategy and the support provided by management

within the Faculty, in particular, the Head of Learning and Teaching, the Faculty Head

and course leaders. Within this case study the Head of Learning and Teaching, appears

to have a pivotal role with respect to the success of the Faculty strategic interventions

that support the University’s learning and teaching strategy. All the interviewees

mentioned this role within various contexts within the analysis it was particularly

identifiable within the influence categories of support and staff development, in the

Faculty sub-category within both of these influences. The success of the staff

development strategic interventions relating to blended learning, in particular the staff

development week, could be linked to the Head of Learning and Teaching who had set

this as priority within the Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy and had organised the

event. It was stated in Chapter 3, that the post of Head of Learning and Teaching is a

University intervention, each Faculty has somebody appointed to this role that is

responsible for implementing the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy via the

Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy. In addition, the Head of Learning and

Teaching within the Faculty of Social Sciences was responsible for developing the

Faculty policy of Learning Teaching and Assessing Online (FLTAO) which provides

guidance to staff on how to benchmark their online activities and gives a definition of

blended learning.

Despite the good work being undertaken by the Faculty with respect to strategic

interventions, that facilitate staff engagement with blended learning, mainly designed

and implemented by the Head of Learning and Teaching, some staff still appear to be

71

disengaged and this includes senior staff. Regarding the barriers to staff engagement

with blended learning identified in the interview analysis, there appeared to be a

correlation with the failure of the University’s learning and teaching strategy and to a

lesser extent strategic intervention within the Faculty. The beginner, for example,

reported that there was lack of support by colleagues within the department with respect

to encouraging blended learning approaches and observed that there was no discussion

of this approach at department meetings, that the main preoccupation was student

attendance. This was despite the recent implementation of the FLTAO and the role that

course leaders have in supporting the Faculty Head of Learning and Teaching with the

implementation of strategy, which includes this policy. There was criticism by some of

the interviewees that the staff development offered by the University did not relate to

academic practice and that there was poor dissemination of best practice regarding the

use of technology within teaching, even though the University has a strategic

commitment to providing staff development, which includes pedagogic approaches. In

addition, there were some comments within the interviews that there was not enough

support provided by the University on the use of technology and that support was

sometimes hidden. These comments are interesting given that the University has made a

strategic commitment to providing central support, via its Elearning Development Unit

whose role is to offer training and development for teaching staff using technology

within the curriculum.

The Faculty Head and the Head of Learning Teaching identified staff time and formal

recognition as two areas where the University should provide a clearer strategic

direction; these were also identified as barriers to staff engagement (MacKeough and

Fox, 2008). Regarding formal recognition, this relates to staff being awarded for

adopting innovative blended learning approaches, the interviewees commented that

72

presently there was no recognition within the University’s award structure that related to

good teaching practice, which would include blended learning. However, the Faculty

had made the strategic intervention of freeing up staff teaching time for some staff so

that they could support colleagues within their Faculty using technology within

teaching. All the interviewees commented on the lack of time for implementing

transformative teaching approaches, such as blended learning. The Faculty Head and the

Head of Learning and Teaching stated that the University had not provided clear

guidance on how Faculty’s could change their curricula to reflect this new approach,

which includes business and staffing models, despite the University’s strategic

commitment. It will be interesting to see if the University’s soon to be released new

strategic plan identifies priorities with respect to facilitating support for staff to develop

blended learning approaches that includes freeing up staff time as well as formally

recognising innovative practice within this area.

Another influence that could not be clearly identified within the University’s Strategic

Plan and Learning and Teaching strategy, was addressing student expectations, despite

its commitment to developing student’s academic and digital skills through the use of

blended learning. The recent student expectations reports, published by JISC, have

shown a growing interest by Universities in this area. The interviews for this case study

were carried out at a time when the University had just released its policy of the

Minimum Standards of Online Learning and the Faculty had already implemented its

policy on Learning and Teaching Online. Both of these policies refer to managing

student expectation with respect to access to online resources and providing parity

across courses in relation to providing baseline online support. All the interviewees

were asked if student expectations have an influence on their use of blended learning.

On a par with what has been found out by JISC, there appeared to be a general

consensus amongst the interviewees that student expectations related to access to online

73

resources, rather than activities and interviewees commented that students were

beginning to compare courses with respect to the availability of online resources and

this was putting pressure on staff. Again it will interesting to see if addressing student

expectations features as a priority within the University’s new strategic plan.

Conclusion

The case study approach has to some extent answered the question how and why

Sterndale’s learning and teaching strategy has influenced the use of blended learning

within the Faculty of Social Sciences. The answer to the ‘how’ question, appears to be

staff development, which was an influence identified within the strategic documents and

a correlation could be made between the interviewee illustrations relating to this and

University learning and teaching strategy in particular the Faculty’s learning and

teaching strategy. Answering the question ‘why has staff development been so

influential’, it could be argued that this is because of the strategic interventions,

implemented by the Faculty Head of Learning and Teaching, with the support of the

Faculty Head. To some extent this finding reflects Conole et al’s., (2007) observations

regarding institutional strategic interventions and Gibbs et al. (2000) comments with

respect to impact of strategy and strong leadership. Conversely, staff development was

not a major influence identified within the other studies and reports within the literature

review, such as Sharpe et al. (2006) and UCISA’s survey (Browne et al. 2008).

However, this may be because these studies were not carried out within the same

context as this research. It should also be noted that staff development was also

identified as a barrier within the interview analysis, as there was criticism that staff

development, particularly that provided centrally, did not relate to pedagogy despite this

being a University strategic priority, which would seem to imply that the University has

work to undertake with Faculties in this area.

74

The analysis found that the interviewees had an awareness of the University’s learning

and teaching strategy and the strategic approach being adopted by the Faculty, as

exemplified in its learning and teaching strategy. However, it was difficult to link the

other main influence identified in the interview analysis, the enhancement of the quality

of learning and teaching, an original proposition generated from the literature review, to

University strategy, despite it being identified as a major influence within the strategic

documents. This could possibly relate to Smith’s (2008) criticism that the language

used within learning and teaching strategies does not engage staff. This may be the

reason why staff within this case study cannot see a relationship between what is

presented within Sterndale’s strategic documents and their own practice. It could be

argued that more work needs to be undertaken with respect to providing a framework

for implementing priorities, regarding learning and teaching in the way that HEFCE has

with its rewritten e-learning strategy. An approach would be to include staff at all levels

in writing the University’s learning and teaching strategy and to include examples

relating the pedagogic uses of technology. In addition, both the manager and the

strategist, commented that University needs to focus strategic considerations on

developing business models that facilitate blended learning approaches and on

providing a rewards framework, which allows the University to recognise good practice

in this area.

The descriptive case study approach did appear to be successful in facilitating the

creation of interviewee narratives that were informative with respect to the experiences

of an “average” member of the teaching staff’s focus on contemporary phenomenon, the

use of blended learning and the influence of complex phenomena, learning and teaching

75

strategy (Yin 2003). However, it must be acknowledged that it may be difficult to

generalise, with respect to the findings, within other areas of the University or other

organisations, unless the case study was carried within the same context. Regarding

making generalisations relating to the literature, the influence of the enhancement of the

quality of learning and teaching could be clearly identified, less so the influence of staff

development. Nevertheless, there was a clearer relationship between the barriers

indentified within the literature and the barriers identified in the analysis. It could be

argued, taking into account Flyvberg’s (2006) work, that identifying the deeper causes

behind why staff use blended learning approaches, may be more engaging for the

teaching community than trying to identify a set of generic characteristics, relating to

the use of blended learning and their frequency.

Recommendations

It has been observed, despite the good work within the Faculty, that that there is room

for improvement by the University, with respect to engaging staff with its learning and

teaching strategy and encouraging them to consider adopting blended learning

approaches within their teaching. The following recommendations are an attempt to

address these two issues. The first set of recommendations relate to the implementation

of strategy the second set relate to implementing blended learning within academic

practice.

76

5 Recommendations for Improving the Implementation of the University’s Learning and

Teaching Strategy

Recommendation Rationale

1. Strategic documents to be

accompanied with scenarios of best

practice

This should help staff to understand

University expectations with respect to how

learning and teaching priorities can be

addressed within their learning and teaching

practice.

2. Staff at all levels should consult

during each stage of the creation of

the learning and strategy.

The University should use a range of

mechanisms to involve staff in this activity

from conception to completion e.g. focus

groups, online surveys and planning groups

3. The University should regularly

review the progress of Faculties

implementing University learning

and teaching strategy.

This should help to identify any groups of

staff who are not engaged with the

University’s learning and teaching priorities

together with the reasons why.

4. The University should obtain

feedback from staff on the existing

learning and teaching strategy at

the end of its lifecycle.

This should help to identify any priorities

that need re-developing or any priorities that

need including in the next learning and

teaching strategy.

5. The University should reflect on

the language used within learning

and teaching strategy, or

alternatively provide an executive

summary.

It may not be necessary for all staff to have a

complete knowledge of the learning and

teaching strategy, although it may be helpful

for them to have an understanding of the

main priorities.

77

5 Recommendations for Engaging Staff with Blended Learning

Recommendation Rationale

1. The University should develop a

rewards framework that includes

recognition of innovative practice

in blended learning

Presently academic rewards within the

University recognise mainly staff research,

despite the Dearing Report emphasising the

importance of good teaching. Hence, there is

more pressure on staff to build their

research portfolio than to evidence

innovative learning and teaching.

2. The University should provide

business models that relate to

teaching staff developing blended

learning approaches, which

includes consideration with respect

to staff time.

The University should provide clearer

guidance on how Faculties can facilitate the

structuring of staff workloads to integrate

the development of blended learning

approaches.

3. The University should focusing

staff development on the pedagogic

approaches to using blended

learning.

The University should use a range of

mechanisms to enable this, such as,

workshops, online training, bespoke training,

events and e-learning champions. This

should also include easy access to examples

of best practice.

4. The University should provide

clearer guidance on how to access

support with respect to the use of

technology within teaching and

implementing blended learning

approaches.

The University should clearly disseminate

the range of support that is available to staff

and how to obtain this support in order to

manage staff expectations

5. Faculties should carry out an

annual skills and attitude survey

with respect to the use of

technology within learning and

teaching and the adoption of

blended learning approaches

This should help Heads of Learning and

Teaching to develop a picture of how staff

are progressing within the Faculty together

with identifying attitudinal barriers.

78

References

Bannigan, K. (2006) How to Do Case Study Research, (onlinehttp://www.naidex.co.uk/page.cfm/link=107) – accessed 24/11/2009)

Berg, L. B. (2007) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London:Pearson

Browne, T., Hewitt, R., Jenkins. M. and Walker, R. (2008) 2008 Survey of TechnologyEnhanced Learning for Higher Education in the UK. (online - https://ebridge.hull.ac.uk/access/content/attachment/120012/Messages/f309f14d-85d4-4ecb-be03-0c6501d2bbed/2008%20UCISA%20Survey%20ofTEL%20for%20HE%20in%20UK.pdf - accessed 14/12/2009)

Brett Davies, M. (2007) Doing a Successful Research Project. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan

Colorado State University (2008) Case Studies. (available(online - http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/casestudy/index.cfm - accessed 24/11/2009)

Colosi, L. (1997) Reliability and Validity: What’s the Difference? (online -http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Colosi/lcolosi2.htm - accessed 24/11/ 2009)

Conole, G., Smith, J. and White, S (2007) A critique of the Impact of Policy andFunding in Connole, G. and Oliver, M. (eds.) Contemporary Perspectives in E--learning Research. Abingdon: Routledge: 38-54

Conole, G., White, S. and Oliver, M. (2007) The impact of E-Learning onOrganisational Roles and Structures, Connole, G. and Oliver, M. (eds.) Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research. Abingdon: Routledge: 69-81

Deem, R. (1998) ‘New Managerialism and Higher Education: The Management ofPerformances and Culture in Universities in the United Kingdom’, International Studies in Sociology of Education,. 8 (1): 47 – 70 (online - http://wase.urz.uni-magdeburg.de/evans/Journal%20Library/New%20Education%20Market/Deem%20New%20Managerialism%20in%20HE.pdf –accessed 204/2010)

Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social ResearchProjects. Maidenhead: Open University

DFES (2003) The future of Higher Education. (Online http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/hegateway/uploads/White%20Pape.pdf – accessed 14/12/2009)

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case-study Research’, Qualitative

79

Inquiry, 12 (2): 219-245 (online http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/219 - Sage Journals – 24/11/2009)

Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st century: A Frameworkfor Research and Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004) ‘Blended learning: Uncovering itsTransformative Potential in Higher Education’, Internet and Higher Education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (online - via Elsevier Science Direct – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4X-4CGMX78-3&_user=2471587&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000057461&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2471587&md5=f3013fe40b7d258bb964bbafe8cf1e81 - accessed 30/11/2009)

Garrison D. R. and Vaughan N. D (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education:Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco : A Wiley

Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, T. and Yorke, M. (2000) ‘Institutional learning and teachingstrategies in English higher education’, Higher Education, 40: 351-372 (online - via Ingenta - http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=15&sid=66f90fc7-127f-4657-b734-a99386038aee%40sessionmgr12 – accessed 20/4/2010)

HEFCE (2009) Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technologya revised approach to HEFCE's strategy for e-learning. (online http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2009/09_12/ - 14/12/2009)

Ipsos MORI (2008) Great Expectations of ICT: how Higher Education institutions aremeasuring up. (online -http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/jiscgreatexpectationsfinalreportjune08.pdf - accessed 14/12/2009)

Jara, M. and Mohamad, F. (2007) Pedagogic Templates for E-learning. Institute ofEducation, University of London. (online - http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/wle_op2.pdf - accessed 14/12/2009)

JISC (2009) Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World. (online –http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf - accessed 14/12/2009)

JISC (2007) In their Own Words: Exploring the Learner’s Perspective of E-learning.(online - http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/iowfinal.pdf- accessed 14/12/2009)

JISC (2007) Student Expectations Study. (online –

80

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/studentexpectations.pdf - accessed 14/12/2009)

NICHE (1997) National Committee of Inquiry into Higher education – the DearingReport. (online - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ - accessed 14/12/2009)

MacKeough, K. and Fox, S (2008) Opening Access to Higher Education to All WhatMotivates Academic Staff in Traditional Universities to Adopt Elearning. European and distance eLearning network 5th research conference: researching and promoting access to education and training. (online - http://doras.dcu.ie/2099/1/eden_2008.pdf - accessed 9/2/2010)

Oliver, M. and Trigwell, K. (2005) ‘Can blended learning Be Redeemed’, E-Learning, 2(1): 17-26 (online - http://www.luispitta.com/mie/Blended_Learning_2005.pdf - accessed 30/10/2009)

Opie, C. (ed.) (2004) Doing Educational Research. London: Sage Publications.

Ramsden, B. (2008) Patterns of higher education institutions in the UK. UUK. (online –http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/Patterns%208.pdf - accessed 14/12/2009)

Rovai A. P. (2004) ‘Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A comparativeanalysis with traditional and full online graduate courses’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2):1-13 (online - http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/192/795 - accessed 30/10/2009)

Samarawickrema, G. and Stacey, E. (2007) ‘Adopting Web Based Learning andTeaching: A Case Study in Higher Education.’, Distance Education, 28 (3), 313-333 (online - http://www.mrgibbs . .com/tu/research/articles/Samarawickerema- adopting_WBE.pdf - 9/2/2010)

Schneckenberg, D (2009) ‘Understanding the Real Barriers to Technology-enhancedInnovation in Higher Education’, Educational Research, 51 (4): 411-424 (online http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/4380_771236265_916258727.pdf - Informaworld - 20/4/2010)

Scott, G. (2003) ‘Effective Change Management in Higher Education’, Educase Review,November/December 64 – 80 (online - http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume38/EffectiveChangeManagementinHig/157869 - accessed 14/12/2009)

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G. and Francis, R. (2006) ‘Implementing a University E-learningstrategy: Levers for Change within Academic Schools’, ALT, Research in Learning Technology, 40 (2):135-151

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., and Francis, R., (2006) The Undergraduate

81

Experience of Blended E-Learning: a review of UK literature and practice. Higher Education Academy. (online - http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/Sharpe_Benfield_Roberts_Francis.pdf - accessed 30/10/2009)

Smith, K. (2008) ‘Who Do You Think You’re Talking To? – The Discourse of Learningand Teaching Strategies’, Higher Education. 56, 395-406.

Sterndale University (2004) University Strategic Plan; 2004-2010. Notavailable publicly.

Sterndale University (2006) Learning and Teaching Strategy 2006 – 2010. Not available publicly.

Sterndale University, Faculty of Social Sciences (2006) Learning and TeachingStrategy: 2006. Not available publicly

Sterndale University (2007) Benchmarking of E-learning at Sterndale UniversityNovember 2006 -2007. Not available publicly

Sterndale University (2008) Learning, Teaching and Assessing Online. Not availablepublicly.

Sterndale University (2009) Minimum Provision of Online Learning and Teaching

Provision. Not available publicly.

Stiles, M. (2003) Embedding eLearning in a Higher Education Institution. (online –http://www.staffs.ac.uk/COSE/cosenew/ati2stilesrev.pdf - accessed 30/10/2009)

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques andProcedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications.

Soy, S. K. (1997) Case Study as a Research Method. (online –http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm - accessed 24/11/2009)

Tellis , W. (1997) ‘The Application of a Case study Methodology. The QualitativeReport, 3 (3) (online - http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html - accessed 24/11/2009)

Yin, R. K. (2003) Applications of Case Study Research. London: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design Methods. London: Sage Publications

Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design Methods. London: Sage Publications

82

83